Archive for the ‘Wildlife and nature’ Category

Starting this month, France implements their new National Action Plan 2018-2023 for wolves and livestock owners. The plan focuses on the support for herd protection measures, regulation of the wolf population, and providing of information and training to a target audience. The return of the wolf is a hot debated topic in France. Farmers demand more killing of wolves, while NGOs want to limit the shootings. Effective herd management, including protective measures such as electric fences and guard dogs, provide a likely solution to this problem. The European Wilderness Society is currently finalising the first edition of an international Best Practice Handbook on herd management in Europe. This handbook can provide local livestock owners with detailed Best practice examples from 7 different European Countries on effective protection measures. Besides France, a common strategy for coexistence with wolves and sheepherding has been developed in Germany.

A closer look

The first priority of the French Wolf Plan is a balance between the ecological and pastoral stakes. It considers a number of 500 wolves for a viable wolf population in France. Also, it stresses that effective defense of herds is necessary, with electric fences and guard dogs, or by shooting if wolf attacks on protected herds continue. Besides a clear support for herd protection measures and compensation of losses, implementation of population ‘control’ by annual killing is also part of the plan. Furthermore, it focuses on education and training to increase knowledge on the wolf’s behaviour and risks for livestock owners.

See hear why the Forest and hunting Departments of Switzerland welcome the return of the wolves.

Supporting livestock owners

Important is the continued support for herd protection, as the Wolf Plan states. Studies proved that herd management is more effective than killing wolves. By developing a financial scheme, the plan will provide assistance to livestock owners for implementation of protection measures. It aims to advice and support the owners on implementation of protection and adaptations to new developments. Furthermore, the plan will establish a ‘guard dog network’, to facilitate guard dogs that are effective against predation, but not aggressive towards third parties. Additionally, the government will create a ‘technical support brigade’ to implement protection for newly attacked herds.

Financial support

The plan even supports the livestock owners and shepherds by financing pastoral huts, access to water and electricity, and better accommodation conditions. Compensation for losses due to a wolf attack are only paid when livestock owners have proper herd protection measures in place. Validation of protection measures and wolf presence are therefore essential.

Allowed killing of wolves

Following scientists’ advice, the plan allows hunters to kill 10-12% of the wolf population each year. According to the latest estimate, there are approximately 400 wolves in France. The quota of wolves that people can kill in 2018 is therefore 40. NGOs tried to stop the wolf hunts, which they claim as ‘political killing’. Earlier this year, the government allowed killing of 3 young wolves. Farmers who protect their animals gain the right to fire a gun as a defensive measure. Warning shots or scaring the animal is not mandatory. Also for herds that suffered from attacks at least three times in the last 12 months, it is now easier to gain defensive shooting rights. However, the plan does not allow killing of wolves from September to December.

Sharing information and knowledge

The Wolf Plan updates the existing communication strategy, to focus more on local involvement and provision of information. It targets all relevant stakeholders and the general public. The plan will develop new training curricula for farming schools to increase awareness and acceptance towards the wolf. Through the support of various studies, the Wolf Plan tries to improve the recognition towards shepherds, and the coexistence of wolf and livestock. It will assess the current vulnerable territories and the impact of wolves on the ecosystem.

The French Wolf Plan also states that cross-border and international collaboration should be strengthened to achieve shared ecological objectives. This also supports the exchange of knowledge and experiences regarding the coexistence between wolves and livestock farming.

What can we expect?

The Wolf Plan has ambitious targets to help livestock owners with financial, technical, and informative support to protect their animals. With this plan, the French government is showing the willingness to support both farmers and the wolf. It is now up to the French farmers to show equal willingness for coexistence. For the wolves, it looks like 1 in 10 will have to fear for it’s life every year. It remains unclear what the Wolf Plan recommends when wolf numbers exceed 500 individuals in France. At least according to the European Commission, the wolf remains a protected species, despite continued requests for legal hunting in Europe. It is often a misconception that hunting protects sheeps. On the contrary, hunting can often increase the depredation since killing a wolf in a wolf pack can cause the wolf pack to break up creating 5 and sometimes more individual wolves. Studies show, that individual wolves are much more inclined to attack livestock than wolf packs. Also the wolf plan ignores the many positive side effects of the return of the wolves to the rejuvenation of the forests and the natural education of the pressure on forests by deer and wild boar.

From feature films to fairy tales wolves haven’t got the best reputation.

And they’re not too popular with farmers in some parts of the US either.

For years the wolves were hunted and killed but now they’re protected.

Kirsty checked out why that’s got some farmers pretty angry.

KIRSTY BENNETT, REPORTER: Wolves get a pretty bad rap. They’re either a scary superhero like Wolverine or appear as an evil werewolf character in the movies. In Australia, this is the closest we get to seeing wolves. But over in the US and Canada, these animals have roamed in the wild for a long time.

This is one place wolves can call home. It’s the Wild West in America – a state called Idaho. Thousands of Gray Wolves used to hang around here but by the 1930s most of them were killed by hunters. Almost 70 years later, packs of wolves from Canada were brought back to the area to rebuild the population. Now, around sixteen hundred wolves live here and in two of the neighbouring states. They can’t be hunted either because they’re a protected species. And that doesn’t please some of the locals, who don’t think they belong.

Ron’s family has lived on this range for more than a hundred years. His feeling towards wolves is pretty obvious, he doesn’t like them.

RON GILLETTE: What are these wolves going to eat? We’re in a wildlife disaster right now they’re killing near everything. What are they going to do eat our livestock and then start eating humans?

KIRSTY: Ron would normally be out hunting wolves by now. But the US Federal Court has put the animals back on the protected list, so they can’t be touched for the time being. It’s a frustrating situation for farmers like Luke too. He’s had to lock up his dogs and cattle behind huge fences to protect them.

LUKE MORGAN, RANCHER: Now we spend a lot of nights and days worrying about how many livestock is actually getting killed by them. It’ll put a lot of ranchers out of business, which is hard on the whole economic deal.

KIRSTY: So for some, wolves are public enemy number one. But for others, they’re great mates!

KIRSTY: Nancy has been breeding wolves in captivity for about seventeen years. And she reckons their bad reputation is unfair.

NANCY TAYLOR: They make him out to be a monster, a snarling evil creature which he isn’t.

KIRSTY: Here, wolves look pretty similar to your pet dog. And they’re not really much different. Many scientists reckon that domestic dogs evolved from wolves. Over tens of thousands of years people have used selective breeding to get dogs for their own use.

So if that’s the case, all dogs, including this little fur-ball are pretty close relatives! Hundreds of years ago, before white people moved in, Idaho was also home to the Nez Perce Indians who feel a strong connection to the wolf. Tribal leaders are joining the battle to protect the animal.

This bloke reckons you can’t sacrifice a species just because it’s convenient. For the time being it sounds like the wolves are a bit safer than they have been in any fairytale.

COMMENTS (57)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added.

SIX EM RODICK :

24 Nov 2010 5:46:49pm

as Dan said, but HIGHER fences

SWIFTCLAWS :

24 Nov 2010 10:01:38am

I seriously hate the way wolves are treated in fairy tales, they have a right to live in this world.

DAN :

17 Nov 2010 1:28:50pm

Just put up fences! Simple!

I like wolves and I think they should continue to be protected.

SHAMISE :

11 Nov 2010 10:56:50am

Wolves are awesome like dogs they dont do anything to cattle.

TOP RIDER :

11 Nov 2010 10:54:57am

I reckon that wolves shouldn’t be hunted they have a right to live on the world

PITTYGIRL :

11 Nov 2010 10:54:41am

I think wolves do nothing to hurt livestock as long as they make secure fences

BOB :

11 Nov 2010 10:53:38am

I think that wolves should be kill because they are killing the sheep and cattle

MR PUFFY :

11 Nov 2010 10:44:28am

I think that wolves should be protected so at least one animal doesn’t get extinct

PLUTO :

11 Nov 2010 10:43:00am

I love wolves
They should stay in America and be protected. Farmers shouldn’t shoot them.
Wolves are wicked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CALLUM AND DANIEL :

11 Nov 2010 10:38:30am

We both think that Wolves should be killed and be protected

THE FANTASTIC CABBAGE :

11 Nov 2010 10:36:26am

The wolves should stay because the Nev Perce Indians feel a strong connection to them and they were they before the white yanks

LARICK97 :

09 Nov 2010 10:50:19am

I think they should be protected creatures because they were on land before the white people

EBONY03 :

09 Nov 2010 10:50:03am

I think the wolves should be on the protected list because it was their land first .

PETER GRIFFEN :

09 Nov 2010 10:48:03am

I think wolves should be controlled not kill them but just stop them breeding as fast but i dont think they should be killed as long as they don’t hassel the farmers to much.

NED :

09 Nov 2010 10:45:54am

I think that wolves shouldn’t be able to roam free. People should fence a big bushland area off and put them all in there. Shooting wolves should not be aloud because it is cruel.

KAVISH1100 :

08 Nov 2010 4:49:31pm

I like wolves because they are not that dangerous if you want to pet them but if you try to harm them, they will attack back.

JESSIE MACNEY :

02 Nov 2010 6:39:03pm

I absolutely agree with all wolf supporters! Wolves should definately have the rights to not be hunted! Imagine if you were a wolf and you got hunted because you were a pest to some silly old farmer. Now that is just plain unfair!!!WOLVES MUST NOT BE HUNTED!!!!

I LOVE ANIMALS :

02 Nov 2010 5:57:53pm

Wolves are amazing creatures they don’t deserve to be killed to save livestock.

THE GREAT CABBAGE :

02 Nov 2010 5:19:47pm

I thnk that it was a very touching story…. *Sniff* SAVE THE WOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THALIA :

02 Nov 2010 4:16:34pm

I think wolves should roam free. They can just eat the sick livestock so that the farmers don’t need to spend mutch money on curing them…

THE GREAT CABBAGE :

02 Nov 2010 3:55:22pm

I love wolves!!! DO NOT KILL WOLVES!!!

ANIMALS :

01 Nov 2010 11:51:53pm

I really think every single wildlife including wolves should be let free from captivity and I think every animal has the right to have freedom and to roam around the place. They can be free to survive and no one is allowed to hurt them. They are really rare now because harmful hunters killed them which is really bad so START SAVING WOLVES AND WILDLIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MEG ,12 :

01 Nov 2010 9:37:43pm

Wolves are native animals to the area, it could ruin eco systems to take them away.

P.S. Wolverine was named after the animal wolverine not the wolf

YOONGY :

01 Nov 2010 7:29:29pm

I reckon wolves should be around, have u farmers thought about how much u did to those animals and wolves just to plant trees?! And ITS LIFE part of the food chain – cant they eat wat we grow as well i mean we eat them?

LUV 4 WOLVES :

01 Nov 2010 7:06:15pm

These people should be more sensitive. In the end, the wolves, as said, are just dogs. Do we kill dogs because they eat some cattle? No! (well, not domestic dogs) Wolves are wonderful animals. To harm or kill them is absolutely downright horrid and is a horrible crime. Save the wolves! Save the wolves!

*This comment was from a 10-20 yr old girl who has a great heart for wolves*

CHRISY101 :

01 Nov 2010 6:56:21pm

Wolves are just like dogs but not as well trained.

IZZY :

01 Nov 2010 6:55:19pm

Like totally wolves are soo scary!

YYYYYYYYYJ :

05 Nov 2010 8:55:14pm

I agree!

2-3B AND 2K :

01 Nov 2010 10:34:01am

Wolves and Dogs are related to eachother.
We find this very interesting.
What do you think.

THE GREAT CABBAGE :

02 Nov 2010 5:23:59pm

Wolves ARE dogs!!!

GINNY :

31 Oct 2010 8:41:17pm

C’mon! Wolves kill livestock! It costs a lot of money and the poor farmers!

ADALITA :

28 Oct 2010 8:00:06pm

I think that it is good that they are re-breeding the wolves because it is their natural habitat. There should be no discrimination against the wolves because they would think ‘We were here before them why should we get discriminated?’
I think it is good the way the lady cares about the wolves and how they are supposed to live.

SOUNDHOUND :

28 Oct 2010 6:38:37pm

I think wolves are great animals and should not be hunted

PHILLIP AND MR. CHICKEN :

28 Oct 2010 3:09:36pm

I like wolves and I think people should stop killing them coz there are only 116 left and they r the bomb

BULLBUG :

28 Oct 2010 3:08:46pm

I think that we should look after the wolves. Because wolves are the best.

BLABLABLA6671 :

27 Oct 2010 5:59:19pm

It’s so cruel people want to kill an animal. there so FLUFFY!!!!!!!

CZCVZMNVMN :

01 Nov 2010 8:49:41pm

They shouldn’t kill wolves because they take too much space wolves are something like dogs that round up cattle and i do agree that they’re FLUFFY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GREEN_MUNKI :

27 Oct 2010 5:57:55pm

Yeah, I have a friend who loves wolves and I didn’t really know what she was on about before i watched this BTN story. Now i look at them and think ‘Wow, who would ever be cruel enough to want to kill this amazing creature just for fun.’ Seriously, though wolves are AWSOME!

LUKE :

27 Oct 2010 4:44:18pm

The werewolf looks weird

RONNIE :

27 Oct 2010 4:37:55pm

I think anybody who thinks they should go is mean. They have a right and anyway, they’re too fluffy to die!!

CHARLIE HIGHGATE :

27 Oct 2010 4:22:37pm

I think wolves should be let free out of captivity and not be able to get hunted down.

KATE :

27 Oct 2010 1:06:41pm

I think the wolves shouldnt be killed because the farmers livestock are being killed. I also think the farmers should be given a fence where wolves shouldnt be able to come in

BELLABANJO :

27 Oct 2010 10:38:59am

I don’t know why people would want to shoot an adorable little animal because of crops. if you were the animal that needed something to eat wouldn’t you go to farms as well??? think about it…

NATALIE :

26 Oct 2010 9:09:50pm

white wolves are so adorable and cute they look like huskies

LOL :

05 Nov 2010 8:59:56pm

the white wolf was so cuteeeee!!
I want one!

BRIDGET W.P.S. :

26 Oct 2010 6:28:20pm

I am glad that the wolves are protected and hope they will STAY protected.

MIKE :

28 Oct 2010 8:35:56pm

I am also glad but they don’t need to stay protected for more then 6 months people need hunting for meat

LOL :

26 Oct 2010 6:27:47pm

I think that the farmers shouldnt be hunting the wolves because they are soo CUTE and other stuff.
I LOVE WOLVES

MIKE P :

26 Oct 2010 6:08:15pm

They are so cute, I love Wolves

LOOPY LU :

26 Oct 2010 5:25:58pm

Just because wolves are being wolves (as they should) does not mean they should die. Farmers just need to make an effort to put high fencing on their land. These beautiful animals cannot be killed- that is just cruel.

SOPHIE :

26 Oct 2010 4:19:06pm

I think that wolves should be protected by law because they are animals and they have their rights as well as us. If farmers livestock are killed well than that’s their fault for not locking them up. Anyone else agree?

SHANNY :

26 Oct 2010 10:57:22am

I love wolves too

WOLVES 88 :

26 Oct 2010 4:08:12pm

I know. they are so cute!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just like cats!

AUDY :

27 Oct 2010 8:23:57pm

I SO AGREE WTTH U

BLABLABLA :

28 Oct 2010 6:37:14pm

WOLVES HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ALIVE!! IF WE KILLL OFF ALL WOLVES THEN THE FOOD CHAIN WILL GO OUT OF WACK!!!

WOLVES333 :

31 Oct 2010 8:24:46am

same here

MYNANEISEMILYIRULESOMUCH :

I happened to come across this old Australian article regarding wolves and I found it quite interesting! Especially the comments. To think this was written only 6 years ago! Times have changed, reached rock bottom only to start climbing slowly again. What pleases me most regarding this article and it’s comments is that the majority is pro-wolf! I’d appreciate my reader’s input through comments.

SILVER CITY — Michael Robinson may have been preaching to the choir at Silver City’s Unitarian Universalist Church last Sunday, judging from the warm applause that greeted his presentation on the Mexican Gray Wolf. But as an advocate for restoring the wolf to the Gila Wilderness, he was probably due a welco

me reception. Robinson represents The Center for Biological Diversity, an activist organization that goes to bat for many species hovering on the brink of extinction.

The Gray Wolf is a special case among vanishing species, Robinson said in a phone interview. “Some 41 animal and plant species are well-documented as having become extinct since 1985. But wolves are unique in that their extinction was intentional.”

In his presentation, Robinson showed photos of federal trappers early in the 20th century who were employed full time to hunt down and kill wolves that had lived in harmony with Native American populations for centuries but threatened the livestock industry of European settlers. Theodore Roosevelt called the wolf “the beast of waste and destruction.”

The Mexican Gray Wolf or “Desert Wolf” of the Southwest was pursued even south of the border, until a growing environmental movement gave rise to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 under President Richard Nixon. Now the federal Fish and Wildlife Service received new marching orders. Instead of tracking down the Mexican Gray Wolf to destroy it, the agency was charged with finding any remnants in Mexico, for a breeding program to bring it back to life.

Gray Wolf (Photo: Courtesy Photo)

In 1998, a small pack of Mexican Gray Wolves, bred in captivity, was introduced to the Gila Wilderness of western New Mexico and the Apache National Forest of eastern Arizona. Today there are 97 wolves in the United States, about half in New Mexico, with another 25 or so in Mexico. It’s a precarious population with only six breeding pairs. And the wolves have been consistently under attack from certain ranchers who have felt under duress from their presence (albeit on public lands, Robinson notes) and by Congressman Steve Pearce and Governor Susana Martinez who have represented the livestock industry in legislation. Both have tangled with The Center for Biological Diversity.

Robinson believes that taking up the cause of the Mexican Gray Wolf involves more than making amends for its destruction by our government a century ago. “It’s also a matter of ecological balance,” he said. “Biologists call it the ‘trophic cascade.’ That is, if you remove a predator such as wolves from the top of a food chain, it has consequences all the way down through lower species.”

He cites the case of elk — 90 percent of the wolves’ diet — which have become sedentary around stream beds, consuming plant life and supplanting beavers. “You want elk to be roaming,” added Robinson, “and that requires wolves.” Wolves also contain coyotes. And, he said, in the absence of wolves and other natural predators, over-grazing of cattle denuded the grasslands surrounding Silver City, which contributed to the flood that left us the Big Ditch.

Robinson is the author of a book on the history of wolves in the United States, “Predatory Bureaucracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West” (University Press of Colorado, 2005).

EUGENE, Ore. – The Humane Society added another $5,000 in reward money for information on who killed wolf OR-28.

The wolf was found dead October 6.

The announcement brings to $20,000 the reward in the case.

“The illegal killing of this young mother wolf is tragic, as every individual wolf is essential to the future of Oregon’s small and vulnerable population,” said Scott Beckstead, Oregon senior state director for The Humane Society of the United States. “Wolves are one of the most misunderstood and persecuted species in North America, with special interest trophy hunting and trapping groups vying to strip them of protections. Wolves are a keystone species, and killing a breeding female can disrupt pack structure, which may lead to increased conflicts with livestock.”

An AKWA is an “area of known wolf activity.” “Within Areas of Known Wolf Activity certain preventative measures are recommended to minimize wolf-livestock conflicts,” the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife says. “Assistance with these proactive non-lethal measures is available from ODFW and the ODA Compensation Plan. Though not required, non-lethal measures are important to minimize wolf-livestock conflicts. Should depredations continue and lethal control become necessary, ODFW’s ability to lethally remove depredating wolves will be dependent on the extent that non-lethal measures have been used.”

“We are grateful to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oregon State Police for their dedication in pursuing those responsible for the death of this mother wolf, who had an important role to play in the future of Oregon’s iconic wolves,” Beckstead said.

The 3-year-old female gray wolf known as OR-28 was found dead in the Fremont-Winema National Forest near Summer Lake, Oregon.

The wolf’s carcass was sent to USFWS’s National Forensics Laboratory for a necropsy.

OR-28 recently paired with 8-year-old male OR-3 and had her first litter of pups, Beckstead said.

“Poaching is an egregious crime against wildlife, and is particularly reprehensible when it involves an imperiled species struggling to make a comeback,”: Ben Callison, president of the Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust. “By depriving this young mother wolf of her life, poachers have committed a crime against an individual animal, her pack, her species and the public. The reckless and callous crime of poaching—whether against wolves or any other species—cannot be tolerated. In addition, we must protect far more habitat, such as the Trust’s 3,621-acre Greenwood Preserve and Wildlife Sanctuary in Lakeview, Oregon, where wolves and other wildlife have a safe and permanent place to roam and raise their young.”

Oregon Wolf AKWA

An AKWA is an “area of known wolf activity.” “Within Areas of Known Wolf Activity certain preventative measures are recommended to minimize wolf-livestock conflicts,” the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife says. “Assistance with these proactive non-lethal measures is available from ODFW and the ODA Compensation Plan. Though not required, non-lethal measures are important to minimize wolf-livestock conflicts. Should depredations continue and lethal control become necessary, ODFW’s ability to lethally remove depredating wolves will be dependent on the extent that non-lethal measures have been used.”

Farmers are concerned that the reintroduced predator will kill livestock, but research from other countries shows these fears are unfounded

The Eurasian lynx: research from other European countries shows their reintroduction is unlikely to trouble British farmers. Photograph: Alamy

Photograph: Jamen Percy/Alamy

Depending on who you ask, the Eurasian lynx is either a benign woodland wonder or a sheep-stalking terror. In reality, any lynx can be either or none of these things. But research from other European countries to which they have returned tells us that a mooted reintroduction to Britain is unlikely to trouble farmers.

The campaign to restore the 30kg cat to the UK gathered steam this week as the proposal was opened to stakeholder consultation. There is no suggestion the lynx will attack humans, but the National Farmers Union (NFU) was quick to release a statement laying out its objections.

The UK’s major farming lobby group said its biggest concern was that lynx would hunt farm animals – particularly lambs. “Those animals are farmers’ livelihoods,” said NFU countryside adviser Claire Robinson.

According to the Lynx UK Trust, the group behind the reintroduction push, farmers’ fears are baseless. An analysis from consulting firm AECOM, found that a lynx will take an average of just one sheep every two and a half years. It even raised the possibility of a net benefit to flock safety if the lynx controlled lamb-hunting foxes as they have in Switzerland.

“I would class 0.4 sheep per year as no impact,” said Paul O’Donoghue, the lynx trust’s chief scientific adviser.

The AECOM analysis averaged out statistics collected during the 1990s from across Europe. However in the original study no standardisation was used to ensure that sheep kills in each country had been recorded in the same way. One of the authors of the 15-year-old report, professor Thomas Kaphegyi, told the Guardian he was “surprised” to see their data used in this way. “Far more relevant information and data on depredation of lynx on livestock is at hand by now,” he said.

The average kills per lynx is important as it allows lynx advocates to estimate the total amount of compensation to be paid to farmers who lose sheep to lynx. The AECOM report found their initially proposed 38 animals would cost just £757 each year, paying farmers double the market rate for killed sheep. This cost would be overwhelmingly offset by £2.7m per year earned through a local lynx tourism boom and the reduction in deer management costs as lynx culled them naturally.

If this windfall proves remotely accurate, the project could remain economically feasible even if the sheep kill rate was 25 times higher – on par with Europe’s most lynx-troubled sheep flock in Norway. However there is little reason to think lynx will hunt this many sheep in Britain. Their flawed attempt to pin down a pan-European average masks the best argument the pro-lynx group has to convince British farmers their flocks are safe – everywhere is not the same.

The AECOM report doesn’t entirely ignore this variability. A “worst-case scenario” is discussed in which the UK’s sheep are hit at the same rate as in France (2.84 sheep per lynx per year) and the relatively huge impact of lynx in Norway is excluded as an outlier.

In September, Norway’s farming lobby warned Scottish farmers about the problem they were having with lynx. During the past century, when few lynx were found in the country, farmers grew accustomed to letting their sheep roam deep into the forest. This practice was exposed after lynx gained legal protection in 1979 and recolonised the forests.

According to a monitoring programme in Norway, between 259 and 486 lynx are responsible for killing 6,000-10,000 sheep each year. In some regions, individual male lynx have been known to take up to seven sheep each month.

But John Odden, the researcher who conducted the Norwegian study, said Norway was the exception that proved the otherwise more reassuring rule. In France’s Jura mountains, even though the amount of available deer prey is low, lynx took five times less sheep than in Norway because they were farmed in enclosed pastures. Odden’s work in Norway backed up the conclusions of researchers in France: that if sheep are kept in pastures slightly removed from woodland margins, regularly monitored and with high populations of deer, lynx mostly don’t bother with them.

“I would expect that depredation on sheep from lynx would occur on a regular basis in Britain,” he said. “But probably on a totally different scale to what we see here in Norway. You have much higher densities of wild ungulates [deer] than us, a more ‘clumped’ sheep distribution, and more forested areas without free-ranging sheep.”

The UK lynx programme has proposed releasing lynx into two English forests: Kielder in Northumberland and Thetford on the Norfolk-Suffolk border. The NFU said these forestry commission sites contained remote regions of patchy, fragmented forest beside which some graziers run sheep. It raised the possibility that these flocks would suffer.

We might pause to wonder at the impossibility – across the breadth of the British Isles – of finding a forest in which to release a few lynx without troubling sheep or shepherd. Six thousand years ago, Britain’s great forests covered 75% of the landscape. Seven thousand lynx ambushed their prey in those woods. Today, less than 13% of the country remains covered.

How rewilded is a lynx that is returned to a semi-wild, sheep-encroached forest?According to the Woodland Trust, sheep and deer are the primary reasons Britain’s forest cover remains at just one-third of the EU average. If the lynx reintroduction is to be anything more than a novelty, sheep-grazing in forest margins must be curtailed, forests must be allowed to spread, creating habitat corridors from which lynx have no need to venture. In this way, sheep and lynx can be kept safe from each other.

Despite their incredible beauty and obvious similarities to our domestic companions, just about everyone knows that wolves are not to be messed with in any way.

But in 2003, Alaskan wildlife photographer Nick Jans and his labrador encountered a wolf in their backyard – and began a relationship that would defy logic and transform an entire community.

Jans was on the back porch of his Juneau home with his dog when a wild wolf appeared. With all the excitement, his dog slipped away, racing out to meet the stranger.

Nick Jans

Nick was stunned to see the two start to play together. He managed to capture this photo of them during the encounter.

Nick Jans

The wolf stayed in the area, and in the years since, Nick has devoted much of his time to documenting him, naming him Romeo.

Arnie Hanger

Romeo became a Juneau fixture, known for playing with local dogs at nearby Mendenhall Glacier Park.

Nick Jans

Residents were unsure at first, but they soon realized that Romeo just wanted to play.

Nick Jans

Romeo didn’t just play with other dogs. He played with humans, too. “The wolf would bring out toys that he’d stashed,” Nick said in an interview. “One was a Styrofoam float. Romeo would pick it up and bring it to [my friend] Harry to throw. He clearly understood the same sort of behaviors that we see in dogs.”

Nick Jans

“The amazing thing was Romeo’s understanding. It wasn’t just our understanding and tolerance. It was the combination of his and ours and the dogs’. We were these three species working out how to get along harmoniously. And we did.”

Dave Willson

Romeo remained around the outskirts of Juneau for six years, becoming an ambassador to the wild and a powerful symbol in the community.

Nick Jans

After Romeo’s passing in 2010, the residents of Juneau held a memorial for the wolf and had this special plaque made in his honor.

Klas Stolpe/Juneau Empire

It’s so inspiring to see three different species learn to live peacefully together in harmony. It just goes to show how wonderful the world can be.

Share this amazing story with your friends, and check out Nick’s account of this unbelievable tale, A Wolf Named Romeo.

Miley Cyrus and her brother Braison travelled to the Great Bear Rainforest on the central coast of British Columbia in late September, 2015, to join local wildlife conservationists from Pacific Wild on a research trip. The pop star is a vocal opponent of BC’s wolf cull, which started last January and has drawn international condemnation from environmentalists. The B.C. government has defended it as necessary to save dwindling caribou populations, but briefing notes prepared for meetings between B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak and industry representatives in 2014 suggest the government was prompted by the forest industry to launch the wolf cull because of fears a federal recovery plan for caribou would demand more logging areas be set aside. (April Bencze/Pacific Wild)

British Columbia’s government has been meeting with the forest industry to develop plans to save endangered caribou, and the province appears to have launched its controversial wolf cull program to avoid putting further restrictions on logging.

The wolf kill, which started last January, has drawn international condemnation from environmentalists, but the B.C. government has defended it as necessary to save dwindling caribou populations. Mountain caribou, which need old-growth forest to survive, are listed under the federal Species At Risk Act (SARA), and the province is required to take action to save them.

But briefing notes prepared for meetings between B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak and industry representatives in 2014 suggest the government was prompted by the forest industry to launch the wolf cull because of fears a federal recovery plan for caribou would demand more logging areas be set aside.

“Tolko [Industries Ltd.] is concerned about potential impacts of the federal recovery strategy for the woodland caribou,” says one of the notes, released in response to a Freedom of Information application. Ottawa’s recovery strategy states that caribou need large tracts of “undisturbed habitat rich in mature to old-growth coniferous forest.” It is up to the province to decide how much forest land to set aside. Environmentalists have long complained that B.C. has not made enough old-growth forest off limits to logging.

At the time of Ms. Polak’s meetings, the B.C. government’s mountain caribou recovery implementation program, known as MCRIP, had already set aside some forest land, established a captive breeding program for caribou and limited recreational snowmobile access in caribou areas. But a proposed wolf cull had not yet been launched.

“Actions within the MCRIP have largely been implemented with the exception of effectively managing wolf populations. Industry has criticized government for failing to effectively implement this recovery action, and will be very reluctant to forgo additional harvesting opportunities to meet any additional habitat targets imposed by the federal recovery strategy,” states a briefing note from April, 2014.

B.C.’s wolf cull began several months later.

The briefing notes also show that the forest industry and government were interested “in aligning strategies with respect to dealing with the federal government” on the caribou issue.

One entry states that the province’s caribou plan “had been ‘tested’ with numerous high-level stakeholders, including the Council of Forest Industries,” which represents forestry companies in B.C., before it was posted for public comment.

Wilderness Committee director Gwen Barlee, who filed the FOI application that pried the documents loose, said she is alarmed by how closely the government and the forest industry appear to have been working.

“Are we having the B.C. government write recovery strategies for species at risk, or are we having logging companies writing recovery strategies for species at risk?” she asked.

“A recovery strategy is supposed to be a document created by science,” Ms. Barlee said. “Obviously, the recovery strategies are becoming polluted with the economic interests of logging companies … and that is not supposed to be the case.”

Sean Nixon, a lawyer with Ecojustice, also found the government briefing notes disturbing.

“This looks like the forest industry in B.C. is either directing the government’s policy on species at risk where that might affect timber harvesting, or at a minimum the provincial government is running the policy by the forest industry to make sure that it’s okay with them. Either is troubling,” he said.

If a provincial government does not “effectively protect” any endangered species listed under SARA, Ottawa can impose regulations on provincial land. Given B.C.’s approach so far, which seems more concerned about logging interests than the needs of caribou, the federal government may have to do just that.